Narinder Thakur, Vice-Chairman.—Maintainability of this Original Application as well as the locus standi of the applicant itself has vehemently been questioned by the respondents as well as the proposed respondent association. Thus, it will be gainful to adduce the facts involved in the present case.

2. The applicant in the present original application is an Association of Lecturer of Government Senior Secondary School of District Solan with its Head Quarter at Government Senior Secondary School, Oachghat, District Solan and the same has been filed through its President, Dr. Narinder Sharma, who has been authorized in this behalf by a resolution dated 13.6.2002 (Annexure-1). As per the submissions made in the original application, the applicant association has called in question the promotions of their counter part promoted Lecturers as Head Master. As per the R&P Rules, the trained graduate teacher (TGT) have two channels of promotion open for them i.e. Head Master and Lecturer. The trained Graduate Teacher who are promoted as a Lecturer are allowed to retain their lien on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher and as and when any post of Head Master fall vacant for promotion they are to be considered for the promotion against the same as per their inter-se seniority as Trained Graduate Teacher.

3. In the present application the applicant association is virtually seeking the relief from this Tribunal to direct the respondent department not to promote their counter part promoted Lecturer as Head Master,

4. Strangely, the applicant association has failed to make out any legal grievance with respect to their above contention viz-a-viz their legal right and in what manner they are going to be affected. Only thing we could find out in the pleadings is that the applicant has pointed out with respect to anomalous situation without laying down any firm legal basis and a case for infringement of their vested legal right.

5. Admittedly, the applicant association represents directly recruited Lecturers to the School Cadre and they are not in the feeder category for the promotion as Headmaster. As such, none of their legal right has been infringed. It is in this context that the respondent vehemently opposed the maintainability of original application. In the above factual position, we gave our deliberate consideration to the point of maintainability of this original application. In this bid, we perused Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, under provision of which the present application has been filed. The very contents of this Section make it amply and abundantly clear that the original application is to be filed by a "person aggrieved" for redressal of his grievances. Now the term "person aggrieved" is to be understood in its legal sense as a person whose legal rights have in any manner been infringed and not the grievances stemming out of prejudice, rivalry, jealousy. No such case has been made out by the applicant association wherein they could have shown or pleaded that in case the promoted Lecturer are considered and promoted for promotion as Headmaster then in what manner their vested legal right is being infringed. In this context with respect to the "person aggrieved" and "locus standi", the Honble Apex Court has held in a case reported in AIR 1982 SC 149 titled as S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India, as under: "14. The traditional rules in regard to locus standi is that judicial redress is available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legal protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by any such action. The basis of entitlement to judicial redress is personal injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened, of the legal right o